The on-again, off-again rumors of the Beatles' music catalog coming to iTunes continue, this time with John Lennon's widow saying she doesn't expect it to happen anytime soon.

"Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono said in an interview with Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out."

She continued: "Don't hold your breath... for anything."

Last year, the entire Beatles catalog was remastered and re-released in a box set that came on on Sept. 9. That was the same date that Apple introduced its updated line of iPods, and the timing led some to expect that a deal would be announced. But the dates turned out to be purely coincidence.

Rumors of the band's songs appearing on iTunes have existed for years. Apple and the parent company of The Beatles, Apple Corps, were engaged in a lengthy and bitter trademark dispute for decades, but that issue was resolved in 2007.

Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.

Reuters noted that Apple Corps has been unable to come to terms for digital downloads with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. From there, another deal with iTunes would need to be struck.

Gawd youre a pest Ono - surely you cant have too much longer on the planet annoying everyone can you..?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The on-again, off-again rumors of the Beatles' music catalog coming to iTunes continue, this time with John Lennon's widow saying she doesn't expect it to happen anytime soon.

"Steve Jobs has his own idea and he's a brilliant guy," Ono said in an interview with Reuters. "There's just an element that we're not very happy about, as people. We are holding out."

She continued: "Don't hold your breath... for anything."

Last year, the entire Beatles catalog was remastered and re-released in a box set that came on on Sept. 9. That was the same date that Apple introduced its updated line of iPods, and the timing led some to expect that a deal would be announced. But the dates turned out to be purely coincidence.

Rumors of the band's songs appearing on iTunes have existed for years. Apple and the parent company of The Beatles, Apple Corps, were engaged in a lengthy and bitter trademark dispute for decades, but that issue was resolved in 2007.

Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.

Reuters noted that Apple Corps has been unable to come to terms for digital downloads with EMI Group, which licenses the Beatles' recordings. From there, another deal with iTunes would need to be struck.

I might be just me, (and I'm out of the demographics that buy a lot of music), the lack of Beatles albums on iTunes (or anywhere) has never been more than a yawn to me. (Truth be told, I listened to the Beatles when their music first came out. I'm not much interested in music for nostalgia's sake).

I might understand the issues between EMI/Beatles and Apple, but I don't care.

Is there really anybody on the planet that wants Beatles music that doesn't already own Beatles music? I mean, it's been 40+ years. I can't imagine that sales will really go up much just because it was made available on iTunes.

"the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format."

The title of the article could be interpreted to mean that the Beatles recordings are available on other digital music sites and that only iTunes is being denied. Then the article rehashes the trademarked name battle, further supporting the idea that iTunes is the real problem. Why do editors do stuff like this? Words plant ideas and I can't believe AppleInsider didn't do this intentionally. The editor intended to spin this as a purely Apple vs Beatles issue when the truth is something else.

Legal issues with EMI, the same company that didn't want to give a potential alien race free access to Beatles music.

(With the launch of the Voyager probe in 1977, NASA, under the suggestion of Carl Sagan, wanted to include "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record. The Beatles loved the idea, but EMI refused to release the rights.)

Gee I got the Beatles in my itune's library what the issue, whats the big deal...

Oh wait, I ripped them from the CD I bought from the second hand store and if I remember correctly, all the song added up to less then $0.99 each, and they are higher quality then the ones you get form itunes.

I wonder if Okon Ono and Paul got their royalty payments form the second hand store....

I don't think you can really blame them. What I see is this: The record companies have pushed to keep the royalties where they've been for quite some time, which is a paltry amount compared to the share the record companies get. However, because distribution is so much cheaper digitally, the record companies are getting more of the profits. The Beatles still sell very well after all these years. I'm sure it's a matter of how much Apple Corps. is getting from the record companies to make them available digitally.

Now all of this is just speculation on my part, but since the article states that Apple Corps. has failed to make a deal with EMI, I assume that's the case. If it is, I'm completely behind The Beatles move. Honestly, the people that create the music we listen to, don't get much of the bounty. I had a friend that was in a Salsa band that was big in Miami a few years back, when Ricky Martin went big time, and they were in negotiations for a record contract. The way he laid it out to me was that the record company paid $0.07 for every record sale, which $0.04 went to the song writer, and the other $0.03 went to the recording artist. And, everytime a song is played on the radio, TV, or an event, the song writer got $0.02 and the recording artist $0.01, IIRC. This pales in comparison to what the record company takes in. However, they do take the risk, at first, with a new artist, and there is substantial costs to get the records played and distributed. But, digital distribution, and thanks to YouTube, these costs have come down some. I remember watching a TV show, where Queen Latifah said that she only got about $200,000 for her break out, smash hit album. Considering how well that sold, that's nothing. She said she quickly realized that they were going to have to do a lot of touring to make money.

So, to wrap it all up, I can't blame them. The record companies and RIAA have been on a money grab since iTunes has become a success, yet the artists haven't shared in that success with the price increases that came later.

I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-Apple and love their products, and them as a company, but they're not bigger than the Beatles. Period.

Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.

Uh, aren't CDs digital? The more accurate term would be downloadable format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacinScott

If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.

It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.

Quite right. I own all the Beatles songs I want already in 160bps AAC. If they released them on iTunes today, they wouldn't get another cent from me anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobius

So you'd wish death on another human being just because she's said something that rankles with you? The polar opposite of what her late husband advocated I believe.

I'm not sure he's saying that at all. Yoko Ono is 77, after all. Like all living beings, her demise is inevitable and quite possibly not too far away. The question is whether she wants to be remembered by older Beatles fans as not only the woman who broke up the band, but also the obstructionist that kept their music from being purchased via legal downloading, despite it already being available from many other sources, both legal and illegal. Or maybe she just doesn't care how she'll be remembered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

I applaud Yoko and Apple Corp. for NOT adding the greatest rock catalog out there to iTunes so individual songs (vs albums) cannot be downloaded. You're an idiot if you let an electronics company dictate what music you listen to.

No, you're an idiot if you let a music act dictate what music you listen to. I'm only allowed to listen to full albums? What if an artist told you you're not allowed to have one of his competitors in the same music collection? Would you accept that decree, too?

I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.

If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.

If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.

It's not like they'll be releasing any NEW music, so it really shouldn't matter.

Exactly. They don't want their music on iTunes for the same reason Tool will not add their catalog - individual song downloads. They don't want the negative backlash when individual song downloads are not permitted. I applaud them for sticking to their convictions.

uh, aren't cds digital? The more accurate term would be downloadable format.

Quite right. I own all the beatles songs i want already in 160bps aac. If they released them on itunes today, they wouldn't get another cent from me anyway.

I'm not sure he's saying that at all. Yoko ono is 77, after all. Like all living beings, her demise is inevitable and quite possibly not too far away. The question is whether she wants to be remembered by older beatles fans as not only the woman who broke up the band, but also the obstructionist that kept their music from being purchased via legal downloading, despite it already being available from many other sources, both legal and illegal. Or maybe she just doesn't care how she'll be remembered.

no single song downloads. That's the issue. And everyone will complain about that, but that's the issue.

all this noise just for some 60 years old songs? come on people!!! it's not that they don't wanna put on itunes some new band or some new cool music. I just don't get it. They (beatles, ono, mccartney ) act like if they were the best in the world and they only have some really old music, good music, but still old, nothing new. Songs that everybody knows and that can listen everywhere. Apple should be the one denying beatles to go on itunes now. I hope steve gets mad about this and tells Ono to go selling apples on a train station.

I really don't understand the fanfare over getting the Beatles music catalog on iTunes.

If you're a fan, you already own their cds and can easily rip into iTunes.

If you're a new fan, just buy their Greatest Hits cd anywhere for $9.99 and go from there.

If you are a new fan, you are more likely to find everything you'd want to listen to on the blue album. All the songs you want without trying to chase down the stuff that wasn't originally released on albums (only singles) -- including the only version of Revolution anyone wants to play.

Personally, I have the remastered CDs from Rubber Soul through Let It Be plus Past Masters ripped to 320k AACs; it's doubtful I'd buy anything Beatles-related from iTunes anyway.

So it doesn't bother me at this point how hard Yoko tries to screw up everything Beatles related.

Exactly. They don't want their music on iTunes for the same reason Tool will not add their catalog - individual song downloads. They don't want the negative backlash when individual song downloads are not permitted. I applaud them for sticking to their convictions.

Any artist (or their record label) can insist on album-only purchases, on either iTunes or the Amazon MP3 store. Lots of examples of this in either download store.

No, in this case, it's just Yoko reminding the world yet again how she screwed up the best band of its time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghostface147

Don't really care much about the Beatles. AC/DC on the other hand...

Angus Young has basically said they get a raw deal from their record company for downloads compared to album sales, so they've just refused to allow download sales and instead had most of their catalog priced around the $10 range. There is a fairly shrewd businessman inside that schoolboy uniform.

Legal issues with EMI, the same company that didn't want to give a potential alien race free access to Beatles music.

(With the launch of the Voyager probe in 1977, NASA, under the suggestion of Carl Sagan, wanted to include "Here Comes the Sun" on the Golden Record. The Beatles loved the idea, but EMI refused to release the rights.)

If that's true, it's hilarious. Were they worried little grey men would copy the music for free and it'd be a inter-stella pirate hit?

I love the Beatles' music, I was listening to their records since I was 5. There music has been available on CD for 20 years now. Not having the music available as a digital download might affect younger consumer's purchasing decision but the rest of us already have everything we want on CD.

Note that publishing rights are a different beast from songwriting rights. Publishing rights are typically owned by the record companies, ostensibly as compensation for album and artist promotion. Publishing rights don't give the owner control of the catalog, they just give them the ability to continually cash royalty checks.